The New NSF Rules for Political Science:How Bad Politics Can Hurt Good Science

Mark Peffley, Political Science

2013: The Coburn Amendment Last March, 2013, Obama signed 600

pages of legislation to keep the government from shutting down.

In the 2013 Continuing Resolution was an Amendment inserted by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to eliminate the National Science Foundation’s political science studies, except those the NSF director deems relevant to national security or U.S. economic interests.

Immediate Impact of the Coburn Amendment

August 15, 2013: NSF cancelled panels for Political Science while it evaluated the new criteria.

Nov. 1, 2013: NSF Dear Colleague Letter to Political Science: “Panels will be asked to provide input on the degree to which the proposed research projects promote national security or the economic interests of the United States.”

Why It’s Important For Political Scientists,

The new rules, if strictly followed, would make most political science research ineligible for NSF funding.

Virginia Sapiro, Dean of Arts & Sciences , BU: “we will now be the only democracy in the world that effectively refuses to support systematic, nonbiased research that can illuminate the dynamics of government and politics. How embarrassing.”

For Everyone Else, All scientists should sit up, take notice and get involved to

stop further anti-science intrusions into basic research. If not, this can and will happen to other disciplines. Other disciplines are already taking action: ▪ APA: “Concerns arise about further moves against behavioral

sciences”

Are these criteria really being applied? Yes! Dear Colleague Letter: Applicants need to

“keep in mind” the Coburn language when preparing submissions for the next grant deadline, 15 January.  Addressed in the broader impacts section of the

project summary and within the project description.” No! NSF acting Director Cora Marrett:

“But does that mean we expect every proposal submitted to be about national security and economic development? Not at all.  If the approach is broad enough, it should not be a problem to support the first-rate projects coming in.”

(Yes) & No? January 2014 submissions: Reviewers “will be asked to provide input on the degree

to which the proposed research projects promote national security or the economic interests of the United States.” Programs officers will take those views into consideration when making funding recommendations.  

How did this happen?

"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.“ -- Otto von Bismarck

Coburn Amendment: Since 2009, Tom Coburn (R-OK)

has been submitting hundreds of amendments into continuing resolutions to keep the government funded.

One regular amendment is to eliminate funding for political science.

2009 proposed Amendment

“PS Research wastes taxpayer money because it supports research on “citizenship, government, and politics,” such as the following:

bargaining processes; campaigns and elections; electoral choice and electoral systems; citizen support in emerging and established democracies; democratization, political change, and regime transitions; domestic and international conflict; international political economy; party activism; and political psychology and political tolerance.”

The “biggest waste,” according to Coburn? The University of Michigan “

American National Election Studies” surveys since 1948 to study public opinion and elections. Why? Because: “Americans who have an interest in electoral

politics can turn to“CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet” who pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions.”

“There is no shortage of data or analysis in this field that would require the government to provide funding for additional analysis.”

Other examples of wasteful studies take statements out of context in the study’s project description posted at the NSF site.

What should political scientists do? Applying to the NSF PS Program:

“Address the new criteria in the broader impacts section of the project summary and within the project description.”

Do not take the new criteria too literally. Apply to other, related NSF programs:

Law and Social Science Program Sociology Program Social Psychology Geography and Spatial Sciences (GSS)

Apply outside NSF

NSF DDIG Webpage for PS Deadline Dates: ABSOLUTE DEADLINE is January 15th. Decisions about support or declines will be

made within six months of this deadline date. Project Duration: 12 months Project Budget: Maximum of $14,000 in direct costs.* Proposals with budgets that exceed

$14,000 in direct costs will be considered to be non-compliant and will be returned without review. The budget must include indirect costs at the institution’s negotiated rate. Indirect costs are not included in the calculation of the $14,000 maximum. Students are strongly encouraged to work with personnel in their institution’s Sponsored Research Office to develop the budget.

Principal Investigator: List the dissertation advisor as Principal Investigator and the student as Co-Principal Investigator. It should be clear, however, that the proposal is written by, and the research conducted by, the student.

Proposal Title: The title should begin with the phrase: "Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: ..."

Project Summary: 1 single page. The project summary should be a summary of the proposed project. The project summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.

Project Description: 10 single pages. Maximum length of the project description is 10 single-spaced pages. Otherwise, all other formatting rules found in the Grant Proposal Guide apply.

Letter: The proposal must include a letter from the major professor who serves as the Principal Investigator. The letter should indicate his/her confidence in the scientific rigor and value of the proposed dissertation research project. The letter should be uploaded as a supplemental document via FastLane.

Why is this bad for everyone? “This is catastrophic intervention in peer review” Slippery slope:

Representative Smith (R-TX 21), Chairman, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has drafted legislation that would significantly restrict the types of research projects funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

It makes all scientific research vulnerable to the whims of political pressure. 

In the end it’s not just about political science, but all sciences. The Federal government is facing shortfalls. Basic research is seen as a luxury and eliminating one program may seem a reasonable sacrifice. But if one program is cut, why not two or three? Who should be on the chopping block? Evolutionary biology? Climate science?

What can we do to stop further misguided cuts in basic scientific research? Persuade UK to join the lobbying

effort by these and other organizations: American Psychological Association,

American Political Science Association, American Sociological Association

Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), the Association of American Universities. ▪ UK is currently not a member of these two

associations.

Actions recommended by the APSA